CD 4 Candidate Janet Contreras Townhall

Look for more townhalls from Janet between now and the general election. She is the first credible challenger Ed Pastor has had in CD 4.


  1. Sounds interesting and worth investigating since Ed Pastor is little more than a seat warmer for Democrats. Honesty, even though her platform comes straight out of the tea party playbook, her issues page is shallow. I’d rather see Pastor stay in that seat than see a quasi-Republican move up the ranks and wreaking havoc with critical votes.

  2. Antifederalist says

    If you want to base your vote on website depth, Janet has Pastor beat hands down. All Pastor has is a listing of his 100% ratings from a smorgasboard of left-wing organizations.

    If you like Congress just the way it is, it’s your right to cast a vote for the business-as-usual ultra left-wing Pastor. Personally, I think the incumbent is part of the problem.

    In 2010, if Janet doesn’t beat him, Pastor may be once agin cooling his heels in the minority who tries to monkey with “critical votes”. My guess, Jane, by “critical votes” you mean anything that fits your “progressive” agenda.

  3. Antifederalist, you may know Ms. Contreras, but I hope you don’t take it personally that I’m not bowled over by the fan fare. Yes, I read her letter, I saw Glenn Beck, I saw the SA post. While “the letter” echoes my own views, the fact remains, her platform is the sum total of a three page editorial. Literally the sum total, since there is no evidence that she has expanded those talking points since last summer. There will be a swarm of candidates running on “tea party” issues because that sells. But just because someone talks “tea party” doesn’t mean they are tea party. I expect a history of a-c-t-i-v-i-t-y to back up some of those claims. Do you know that a phony is running for the Nevada senate seat? He invented a new political party and called it…The Tea Party. The new Nevada Tea Party has a registered Democrat for its Secretary! Did you know that Scott Brown is being mocked as a godsend for Democrats? At least, there were people in his State that knew him.

    I have no more patience for sound bites. I have no more patience for the well-intentioned hitching their wagon to anyone chanting the right phrases. Conservatism has a wily enemy who makes it their business to interfere with candidate selection. Is that what you want for November? I don’t. I hope you’ll join me in a contemplative and studied vetting of the candidates in November. God knows CD-4 needs to remove Ed Pastor. Yea, yea. Janet Contreras sounds like a conservative, but so does John McCain every six years. Imagine being in a canoe race where everyone in the other boats are paddling forward while two guys in your boat are paddling backward. Call me suspicious, but there is something missing in Ms. Contreras’ presentation. Empirically, there’s more reason than not to believe she’ll end up paddling the wrong way. Let all those who paddle the wrong way do so in the other guy’s boat, not mine!

  4. I am Janet Contreras, running for Congress in Arizona congressional district #4 against incumbent liberal Ed Pastor. I had the great privilege on Saturday, April 24, to speak with a large group of largely Hispanic Americans at a Candidate Town Hall in Phoenix. I want to thank all who participated in this event and contributed their considerable constructive input in the discussions.

    National attention has been given to the new Arizona law as having the potential to violate the civil rights of the people of Arizona. Therefore, we took it to the people of Phoenix to see what they had to say.

    The discussions included for the most part a vast majority agreement that border security is needed and has been a paramount issue in Arizona for a long time, that the federal government has failed due diligence in its duty to perform this function for the nation, and that Arizona has suffered both financially and socially long enough as a result of that failure.

    Additionally, our great law enforcement officers, who bravely honor their duty to protect and serve the people of the great state of Arizona, are being portrayed as racist, rogue cops by the very people who have refused to support the securing of our national borders and provide for the adequate defense of our nation from foreign enemies who intend harm to Americans.

    While there were questions regarding the fair treatment of people under the new law, cooler heads prevailed in the end. The law does not legalize racial profiling and will not turn our law enforcement professionals into crazed racists. That is not only insulting to our honorable peace officers, but a knee-jerk reaction without knowing the facts—much like saying “the Cambridge Police acted stupidly.” “Reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are the backbone of this law. To imply that our law enforcement is not sophisticated enough to know these common terms taught at every police academy and in daily practice is denigrating and demeaning.

    If there were some cops who were not above reproach before this bill, there may still be some after this bill. The bill does not create them. Those that go astray of their powers, or abuse their privileges are the subject of media attention, and community repudiation. Suggesting that our law enforcement in its entirety will become “bad cops” as a result of this legislation is not only untrue, it is disrespectful to the brave men and women who work every day to keep our streets as safe as they possibly can and place their lives on the line for our communities daily.

    Law enforcement indicates that 17% of illegal immigrants apprehended in Arizona are engaged in serious criminal activity. Our peace officers already encounter such individuals on a regular basis in the normal course of law enforcement. The only difference this bill makes is that local Arizona officers can be trained to enforce the federal laws and prosecute and transport offenders to federal facilities in the state or any other point of transfer into federal custody. The law does not allow police to throw a dragnet over a quinsenietta and deport everyone without proper identification in attendance. It would however allow officers to determine identity and status of individuals involved in criminal activity under “reasonable suspicion” and/or with “probable cause” discovered in the normal course of law enforcement duties.

    It was a spirited, but fruitful event. All who participated did so peacefully, thoughtfully and in the tradition of our sacred first amendment. Again, thank you for attending.

  5. This is for Jane (the Other One) who thinks Janet will switch sides if elected. Independent Caucus, a non-partisan group of American patriots, has done the hard work of thoroughly vetting Janet and, regardless of what you are interpreting from her website, ICaucus has determined her to be a person of high character who follows our Constitution and is fiscally conservative. That alone shows she won’t fall in with the Dems since all they want is more spending and larger government.

  6. Supporting you all the way from North Carolina Ms. Contreras

Leave a Reply